HARJIT KAUR Vs. SUKHVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order the application filed by the plaintiff/respondents under Order XVIII rule 17 -A, Civil Procedure Code has been allowed and the plaintiff has been permitted to produce a handwriting expert to prove the signature of the deceased Bahadur Singh, who is alleged to have executed an agreement to sell, which is the subject - matter of dispute between the parties.

(2.) Mr. Des Raj Mahajan, Learned Counsel; for the petitioners, has urged that the onus to prove the execution of the agreement lay on the plaintiff • respondent and the had sought to prove the document in question by producing the scribe and the other witnesses. He also urged that the defendant - petitioner in his evidence produced Mr. Satwant Puri, Handwriting Expert, Patiala, who opined that the signature on the agreement to sell did not tally with the signature of Bahadur Singh alleged to have been appended on the account opening form of the Punjab and Sind Bank, Barundi, district Ludhiana. It has been asserted by the respondent therein in his application under Order XVIII, rule 17 -A, CPC that it was after the evidence of the defendant had been closed when he became aware of the fact that Bahadur Singh had executed a mortgage deed in favour of the Co - operative Bank, on which he had also appended his signature and, as such, this signature should be allowed to be compared with the disputed signature by some handwriting expert.

(3.) After hearing the counsel for the parties I find no merit in this petition. The trial Court has found that as a matter of fact the respondent was not aware of the execution of the mortgage deed earlier and secondly that the mortgage deed was a document the authenticity of which could not be easily questioned by the petitioners and it was on these findings that the application was allowed.